TR, CT, MT -- All results of text criticism?

The real argument comes down to: </font>

• The definition you use for "textual criticism" </font>
• The philosophy behind your textual criticism </font>
• The objects of your textual criticism </font>

Pretty much. I'll be interested to hear reactions to this statement, however.

 

All are products of TC, but the question remains of what type? Believing or unbelieving? E.F. Hills wrote extensively on the difference (and was ridiculed in "Christian" academia).

There is pre-modernism TC and postmodernism TC. The objection to the PM TC is that it was thought to be a child of higher criticism by many TR/MT folks.

[ July 31, 2002, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

I pointed this out on another thread a few days ago when it was suggested that the eclectic text was the result of men deciding what God's words were. web page

It was answered by quoting from Westcott who said that Erasmus did not practice scientific textual criticism. I responded that while that was true, I had not discussed scientific textual criticsm but rather the necessity of textual criticism no matter your textual preference.

I think this is really an understated point in this discussion. No matter what text you choose, you have a man or a group of men deciding the best reading. The question is, Will those men tell you all the evidence (such as the CT and the MajT do), or will they not, such as the TR does. I think the previous option is by far better.

However, we should be discussing the principles of textual criticism, along with a proper definition of it (to help those who think we are "criticizing the Bible").

 

Chris,

Just a few quick thoughts.

I would be interested to explore whether this "believing/unbelieving" makes a real difference in the end. While it may, I am not yet persuaded that it does. The believer starts by presuming that God has preserved his word in the manuscripts. The unbeliever starts by assuming that a common source was responsible for the manuscripts. In other words, the difference is at a presuppositional, not an evidential level it seems to me. I am not convinced that there is a huge difference here since the belief/unbelief deal with "how" the manuscripts got here at a presuppositional level, rather than what we do with them now that they are here. In reality, all the evidence has been preserved.

And if some think that it is the product of higher criticism, should not we correct them by properly defining the differences between higher and lower criticism?

[ July 31, 2002, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

IMO Mark is correct and the question, as others have pointed out, is which family is more reliable.

From my own personal study of the matter I agree with Dean John Burgon (in many of his volumes) that the Received Text (or Textus Receptus - TR) dates back to 370AD (The revision Revised) representing a collation/compilation of thousands of Greek texts (and translations) many of which have been lost along the way. Burgon says that even Wescott and Hort promoted this date for the TR and (I am almost certain) gives the actual quote and date of W&H to that effect.

SO, To use 4 or 5 so-called "older-is-better" Uncial Manuscripts which "disagree wildly" amongst themselves to amend the TR doesn't make logical sense.

Now, I know that many better than I hold the Wescott and Hort view and some, perhaps most, with a strong faith conviction and I respect that conviction.

In addition, the Lord has used some those of that conviction here at the BB to open my understanding about several spiritual things.

I guess I said all that to say that I don't see the need to debate the details of my view but just to agree with Mark and give my point of view.

Perhaps another thread could be started to show what John Burgon really said/taught. He certainly wasn't a KJVO (and that's not my opinion but fact and I can prove it ).

HankD

 

There is a famous old university in my home town with a "theological" seminar. In Germany the "theology" you learn at university is
garbage!!! The professors don´t believe in God neither do they believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Many Christians lost their faith by attending theological seminars in Germany.
There is a professor at this university who published a book about the resurrection of Jesus. He said very clearly that Jesus never rose from the death. He never appeared to His disciples. He is dead! That was a shock for all Germans. Everybody "knew" that there is no God and that the Bible can´t be true and so on but... professor of theology clearly stating that Jesus is dead! What a shock!!! The church tried to fire Him (yes, that is possible in Germany ) but it didn´t work. All they could do was to remove Him from the seminar´s examination comitee.
Why I am telling you all this:
This "professor of theology" said that He does not have to be a believer in God or His Word to be a good theologian!!!
Now... what does "theology" means. It comes from "theos" and "logos" meaning "The Word (or teaching) of (or about) God"
Jesus said: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
You cannot understand or even teach the Word of God and be spiritually dead! Only our spirit understands His words!
So if an unbeliever tries to figure out what is the Word of God and what is not (textual criticism), he certainly tries to take passages like:
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. "
You have to believe that it is God´s Word. Otherwise you can´t do your work with the respect needed for such a task.

God bless y´all!

Jesus is Lord

 

Jesus is Lord,

YOu wouldn't happen to be talking about Gerd Ludemann would you? He is considered the European head of the Jesus Seminar, a radical group of mainly U.S. based New Testament scholars. If you are, here is a good book you might be interested in, written around a debate between Ludemann and William Lane Craig, the great modern evangelical apologist on the resurrection of Jesus:

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/79822650?item_no=15694X&event=SRC

 

JIL,

I understand your point but perhaps I wasn't clear. The issue is a bit different as I see it. If we have three different readings in the manuscript evidence, is the believer any better able to make determinations about which is most likely to be original than the unbeliever? Apart from suggesting some kind of special leading (which has some theological problem) I do not see how the believer is better able than the unbeliever. We are not dealing with matters of spiritual understanding but of textual evidence. Someone who denies inspiration and inerrancy has the same three readings that someone who affirms it has. Someone who denies inspiration and inerrancy might have different perspectives about how those readings got there, but that does not affect the existence of the readings. The evidence is the same. Again, I am open for someone to convince me that it makes a difference. I just have not yet seen it.

Let me remind you that I am not talking about theology per se but rather about the preservation of textual evidence. In other words, we are not trying to understand and apply the text; we are trying to ascertain which reading is most likely to be original. Therefore, this is a vastly different exercise than you are referring to above.

[ August 01, 2002, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Interesting. Truthfully, I'm not ready to say that the difference between believing criticism and unbelieving criticism doesn't make a difference. But since God has preserved His Word, even an honest unbeliever should be able to see the results of that due to the evidence.

 

Well said, Mark

However, I fear this statement is shown too many times to be untrue. How many times have we heard, even on this forum, of the secret life of Westcott and Hort, as if it contributes something to the topic at hand.

 

Did you notice how the proponents of the "secret life of Wescott and Hort" quited down when the "secret life of King James" hit the rumor mills?



All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

HankD

 

I'm surprised you say this Larry. As a fellow Calvinist, I know you believe in total depravity, and so the unbeliever is unable to "choose the good." When a decision is to be made of A or B, the unbeliever will steer toward B (anti-God choice).

To use the creation/evolution analogy, the unbeliever will always approach the evidence with a presupposition against God. So that whatever evidence he turns up, it cannot mean that creation is true.

Similarly, the unbelieving text critic approaches the longer ending of Mark. romans 8:1 and John 7:53 - 8:11 and determines that they cannot be original, for God did not preserve anything, it merely followed "natural" text preservation as did all ancient documents, and moves it to a footnote.

 

I agree with that in the issues of sin. However, when you are looking at an array of manuscripts, there is no clear "right" and "wrong" choice. All have been preserved by God's decree (if not anything else). The texts do not come with a "right" and "wrong" label on them such as sin does.

I do believe that textual criticism is more a matter of science than of doctrine. There is no clear doctrinal teaching on teh "how" of preservation (multitude, majority, TR), only on the fact of preservation. While there are good arguments to be made for the majority text type, there are also good arguments for the eclectic text. In the end, it is not revealed to us and therefore, it seems hard to place it in a category of "sin."

Why do you assume that this is the unbelieving position?? What is in the text that determines the shorter reading be wrong?? Or are you basing this on some factor outside of the text??

[ August 01, 2002, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Yes, I was talking about Him, will. You know him in America?
Thanks for the URL!!!

Be blessed.

Alex (Jesus is Lord)